This document summarizes a case study on the development of a new generation of self-service ticket vending machines (TVMs) using a user-centered design (UCD) approach. Over 250 participants were involved in various stages of the design process to gather requirements and feedback. The development occurred in three phases: context of use analysis, requirements analysis, and iterative testing and evaluation of hardware and software designs. The resulting prototype addressed the needs of most user groups, though some further adjustments were still needed. The case study found that involving users throughout the entire design process, as the UCD approach prescribes, is valuable for developing self-service systems that are accessible and easy to use for all.

1. 138 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 2, JUNE 2013
Case Study
A User-Centered Design Approach to Self-Service Ticket
Vending Machines
—KARIN SIEBENHANDL, GÜNTHER SCHREDER, MICHAEL SMUC, EVA MAYR, AND MANUEL NAGL
Abstract—Since their introduction, self-service ticket vending machines (TVMs) have become an increasingly
important distribution channel in the public transport sector, progressively replacing the traditional ticket counter. In
a public transport setting, where ticket counter closures have left different groups of people dependent on TVM to
meet their mobility needs, a single, effective system is required. Research questions: (1) Which barriers do currently
hinder the usage of TVM? (2) Which requirements should a barrier-free TVM fulfill? (3) How can we design a new
self-service TVM for a nationwide public railway company? (4) How can we ensure that the usability and user
experience (UX) is high for all users, especially for those with low levels of technological affinity? Situating the
case: Most other studies on the use and usability of TVMs were conducted as post-hoc evaluations. In contrast,
our case study presents a user-centered design (UCD) approach that takes the needs of the different target groups
into account throughout the whole development process. Theories and concepts that guided the case included UCD,
which involves alternating test and evaluation loops that actively involve users to create a usable product and UX,
which describes the quality of the experience a person has when interacting with a specific computer system using a
specific interaction technique. Methodology: More than 250 participants were involved in focus groups, observations,
interviews, and experiments from the very first stages of development. Interface designs were presented to the
future end users to obtain their feedback, with the results fed back into the design process. About the case: A
prototype for a novel generation of TVM was developed in three phases: First, the context of use was analyzed.
In the second phase, we conducted a requirements analysis. Third, different hardware and software interaction
designs were iteratively tested and evaluated. The resulting prototype met the requirements of most user groups,
though further adjustments are necessary. Conclusions: The UCD approach proved to be a valuable framework for
the development and design of self-service systems.
Index Terms—Self-service technologies, senior user, ticket vending machines (TVMs), user-centered design (UCD),
user experience (UX).
INTRODUCTION
There is an observable trend across Europe to
continuously reduce the number and opening
hours of serviced ticketing for public transport.
This forces passengers to use self-service ticketing
channels like the internet, mobile ticketing, or—as
in the case of this study—ticket vending machines
(TVMs).
These self-service channels pose a barrier—espe-
cially to older passengers [1]–[4]. Why is this the
case? The current generation of ticket machines
in Europe (often developed around 15 years ago)
mainly displays “machine-generated logic” at the
interface to the customer. No focus was placed
on user friendliness and the user experience (UX)
Manuscript received June 13, 2012; revised March 14, 2013;
accepted March 25, 2013. Date of publication May 13, 2013;
date of current version May 20, 2013.
The authors are with the Center for Cognition, Information
and Management, Danube University Krems, Krems 3500,
Austria (email: karin.siebenhandl@donau-uni.ac.at; guenther.
schreder@donau-uni.ac.at; michael.smuc@donau-uni.ac.at;
eva.mayr@donau-uni.ac.at; manuel.nagl@donau-uni.ac.at).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are
available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
IEEE 10.1109/TPC.2013.2257213
during their development. As a consequence, people
with low technological affinity have difficulties in
using these machines. Given that transport policies
seek to encourage the increased use of public
transport by the broad population, reducing these
access barriers will be one of the major tasks facing
technical communicators when developing such
systems.
This paper presents a case study on the
development of a prototype for a new generation
of user-friendly self-service TVMs, the INNOMAT
project. This prototype will be the basis for
the industrial development of the new TVM for
the Austrian Federal Railway [Österreichische
Bundesbahnen (ÖBB)]. The project itself serves as a
showcase for a user-centered design (UCD) process
for self-service systems. When service providers
develop a self-service system intended for use by the
broad public, users should be included throughout
the entire development process—right from its
early beginning. The aim of such a development
process should not only be to develop a system
which is usable by most users, but to develop a
system which leaves all passengers with a positive
feeling after use. Accordingly, the INNOMAT project
0361-1434/$31.00 © 2013 IEEE

2. SIEBENHANDL et al.: UCD APPROACH TO SELF-SERVICE TVMS 139
focused not only on usability, but also on the UX
of different user groups.
The research questions of the case study were:
• Which barriers do currently hinder the usage of
TVM?
• Which requirements should a barrier-free TVM
fulfill?
• How can we design a new self-service TVM for a
nationwide public railway company?
• How can we ensure that the usability and UX is
high for all users, especially for those with low
levels of technological affinity?
In this paper, we situate our case study in the
context of other research on barriers in self-service
ticketing and discuss relevant theoretical concepts,
namely, UCD and UX. We then describe how this
case was studied and how we applied the UCD
process. Next, we present our case, outlining each
step of the UCD process with its main results. In
the final conclusions section, we discuss how the
UCD approach helped us to reach our aims and
examine those factors which proved to promote or
hinder the development of a novel, self-service TVM.
SITUATING THE CASE
This section situates our case study. First, we
outline the barriers to the use of self-service TVM
already identified in prior case studies. We then
describe UCD in its context as a methodology which
allows user needs to be addressed during the entire
design process. Finally, we discuss UX as a factor
which can promote a positive experience with TVM
and lead to their repeated use.
How Literature Was Selected TVMs have not
been a subject of major research interest until
now. We therefore conducted a broader literature
review and searched not only for prior research on
our specific target technology (TVM), but also on
other self-service technologies—for public transport
or other services. In doing so, we tried to identify
existing barriers to the use of TVM and success
factors in existing design solutions and effective
development processes.
Self-service technologies and UCD cannot be
reduced to one single discipline. Likewise, a
literature review of this topic cannot be reduced
to one single database. We therefore conducted a
broad literature search in databases on computer
sciences, engineering, and social sciences, but also
a more open search on cross-disciplinary databases
like Google Scholar.
Barriers to the Use of Self-Service TVMs Many
subgroups in today’s society are not skilled at
using new technologies. Based on their negative
experiences with technology in everyday life, they
often develop a tendency to avoid new technologies.
The resulting lack of technological expertise can
build barriers that affect mobility and lifestyle.
This certainly holds true for the elderly and other
socioeconomic groups disadvantaged by the digital
divide, since they rely, in particular, on public
transport [1].
Prior negative experiences with everyday
technologies represent one of the strongest barriers
to the use of self-service TVM. Research into ticket
queues at 12 major railway stations in Great Britain
supports this assertion. Passengers who could
have bought their tickets from a TVM confirmed
that their decision to purchase at the ticket counter
was driven by a lack of confidence in their ability
to use the machine as well as a lack of confidence
in their “ability to select a ticket at the appropriate
price with the necessary validity or relevant route”
[2, p. 4].
Subasi et al. [3] come to a similar conclusion in
their study of usage barriers and perceptions of
an online ticketing service for a nationwide public
railway company in Austria. With regard to the
optimization of an online system, they conclude
that:
it is necessary to develop a system which is not
only universally accessible, but also satisfies
the specific expectations of senior users in
terms of usage patterns and their specific needs
as well as different perception models.
To overcome the lack of confidence among older
passengers, the ALISA project [4] added training
modules to a TVM. The training helped users
learn how to use the machine and increased their
technological self-efficacy—independent of age.
These case studies on self-service TVM were
conducted as post-hoc evaluations [2]–[4]. None of
them goes through the entire design process—a gap
which our case study can close by using a UCD
approach. The main benefit of such an approach
is that the design can already be aligned with the
needs of many different user groups at an early
stage, removing the need for post-hoc adaptations
as in the ALISA project [4].

3. 140 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 2, JUNE 2013
UCD Approach In the UCD approach, the
development of the design process is planned
in alternating test and evaluating loops which
actively involve users [5, p. 588]. More specifically
(and according to the ISO 13407 standard on
human-centered design), this includes five essential
steps:
• Plan the human-centered design process
• Understand and specify the context of use
• Specify the user and organizational requirements
• Produce design and prototypes
• Carry out user-based assessment including
formative evaluation
To ensure that a self-service system like a TVM
meets the demands of a system intended for use by
the general public (a broad target group), the UCD
principles [5] should be adapted as follows:
• Interdisciplinarity: The conceptual construction
and design of a self-service system as well as
the functional aspects of the user interface
should be developed by an interdisciplinary
team of engineers and specialists for
ergonomics and accessibility, media design, and
hardware/software development.
• User-oriented design: To guarantee the design
of a user-oriented system (both hardware and
software), the target groups should be involved
from the very first stages of development. The
needs and requirements of different target groups
should already be taken into account during the
development stage; for example, to accommodate
experienced users who want fast processing with
few steps as well as inexperienced users who
need comprehensive, intuitive prompting via
audio-visual information channels.
• Iteration of design solutions: Design approaches
and solutions should be presented to the
future end users to generate feedback and the
results fed back into the design process. User
studies should systematically involve users from
the beginning to the end of the project—from
paper mockups of initial designs, through early
clickable prototypes to a working prototype of an
actual TVM.
• Allocation of function between the user and the
system: A self-service system for the broad public
should adapt to the user wherever possible. Any
input required by the user should be kept to
the necessary minimum. At the same time, the
system has to provide the user with as much
feedback as necessary to ensure he/she is aware
of the selections he/she has made.
By translating the UCD principles to (the
development of) self-service TVM, these
assumptions all essentially relate to the quality
of use of such machines. How quickly can I get
a ticket? How complicated is the process? How
confident am I that I will be able to get the best
value ticket from this machine and pay the correct
price? To what extent does the system’s purchase
process correspond to the mental models the
different target groups have of such a process? To
what extent can the design of the TVM support
a purchase process with positive connotations?
These questions, in turn, emphasize the importance
of research into UX for self-service technology
systems.
User Experience (UX) UX describes the quality
of the experience a person has when interacting
with a specific computer system using a specific
interaction technique [6]. According to Hassenzahl
and Tractinsky, UX incorporates different aspects
like social experience, ambient conditions, joy of
use and aesthetics, as well as factors like perceived
privacy, security, and trust:
UX is a consequence of a user’s internal
state (predispositions, expectations, needs,
motivation, mood, etc ), the characteristics
of the designed system (such as complexity,
purpose, usability, and functionality) and the
context (or environment) within which the
interaction occurs. [7, p. 95]
In the TVM context, factors like social experience
and ambient conditions would seem to be
particularly important. In this respect, technology
aversion is caused or intensified at least to a certain
extent by negative social experiences. It is not
surprising that elderly users, in particular, often
find themselves confronted during the purchase
process with impatient reactions and social
pressure from the other people waiting in line.
In general, there is an increasing demand for
public self-service systems like TVM (such as
e-government or e-health systems), and their
prevalence will increase in the future. In the
following sections, we present a multifaceted case
study that describes how a new generation of TVM
was designed to best meet the needs of different
user groups. The findings of this study can serve as
indicators for future research and design questions
on the relations between self-service technologies
and UX.

4. SIEBENHANDL et al.: UCD APPROACH TO SELF-SERVICE TVMS 141
Fig. 1. Applied UCD process.
HOW THIS CASE WAS STUDIED
In this section, we present the methodology used
in our case study: First, we discuss our choice
of research methodology. We then describe the
participants in the case study, explain how data
were collected and analyzed in the UCD process,
and demonstrate how we ensured credibility and
trustworthiness.
Choice of Research Methodology Fig. 1 provides
a general description of our UCD approach, the
individual phases and steps in the project, and the
methods used.1 As can be seen, we used a wide
set of different methodologies in the course of the
project to best inform the next design phases and
answer the relevant research questions in each
phase.
In the first project phase (Requirements), our
research focused on (1) looking into existing
barriers to the usage of TVM, and (2) identifying
requirements for a barrier-free TVM. To identify as
many existing barriers as possible (CoU), we decided
not to restrict ourselves to one single methodology
(a procedure often necessary in economic contexts,
when resources are more limited), but instead
used different methodologies with different aims.
Accordingly, we reviewed existing literature on the
use of technology by people with special needs
1A detailed description of each phase, including its
methodology, will be given in the section “About the Case.”
Fig. 2. Project team.
(vision impaired, mobility impaired, the elderly) and
their requirements for using a TVM. In addition, we
invited experts and stakeholders to participate in a
focus group to add their experiences to the material
gathered. To identify interaction problems and
barriers to the use of the existing TVM in Austria,
we conducted observations (in situ, video analysis,
logfile analysis) and interviews at railway stations.
To gather ideas on how to overcome these existing
barriers, we carried out a competitor analysis of
other TVM and self-service technologies through
a literature survey and physical observations at
railway stations across Europe. Regular meetings
with the project consortium were used to collate all
the information collected into a list of interface and
hardware requirements [RA].

5. 142 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 2, JUNE 2013
Fig. 3. Distribution of age and technological affinity among participants. Cutoff scores depicted as lines separate
the participants into four experimental groups.
In the second project phase (Design and
Evaluation), the research focus lay on (3) designing
a new self-service TVM system for the ÖBB, and
(4) ensuring that the usability and UX of this new
TVM was high for all users, especially for those with
low levels of technological affinity. After defining
the use cases, we conducted brainstorming and
creativity sessions to design first wireframe layouts
[D1] and gained user feedback on these designs
at a very early stage in the design process from
focus groups and experts [P]. Although we were not
able to conduct an experiment or any observations
at this stage, this early feedback on the designs
allowed us to avoid cost-intensive development
activities in the wrong direction. In later stages, we
tested three different software mockups [D2] in an
experiment [E1] and developed the most usable
of these mockups for inclusion in an integrated
hardware and software prototype [D3] for the last
round of user testing [E2].
Participants Two key principles of UCD are (1)
involving the users throughout the whole process,
and (2) working in an interdisciplinary team.
Accordingly, a number of different people were
involved in this design process. The regular project
team in the INNOMAT consortium was made up of
an interdisciplinary group of hardware and software
developers, media designers, usability experts, and
representatives of the ÖBB. (See Fig. 2.) During the
different phases, we called in external experts and
stakeholders to complement the know-how of the
project team, for example, on UX, accessibility, and
the needs of different target groups.
For user testing, we strived for two different
characteristics in our participant sample: (1)
diversity in age, and (2) diversity in technological
self-efficacy (SE). Since public transport passengers
range in age from the very young to the very old,
we also strived to include a wide age range in our
participants (13 to 84 years, see Fig. 3). We sought,
in particular, to ensure that half of our participants
fell into the older age bracket (above 55 years), thus
including those people who had been identified as
having problems with TVM in the past. Another
group that had been identified as having problems
(though often overlapping with the elderly group)
was people with low technological affinity. We
therefore sought to include participants who scored
high as well as participants who scored low on our
technological affinity scale.
We used different strategies to recruit test
participants: In the railway station setting
[observations and interviews (CoU)], we used a time
sampling method: We observed TVM users on four
occasions (weekday–weekend, urban–rural stations)

6. SIEBENHANDL et al.: UCD APPROACH TO SELF-SERVICE TVMS 143
and categorized them with respect to their age and
how they approached the TVM (cautious—targeted
fast interaction).
For the studies in our usability laboratory,
we invited local participants using different
strategies: First, we used our own database of test
participants, which turned out to contain mainly
young people with high technological affinity. To
combat this bias, we used alternative strategies like
newspaper adverts and requests to mailing lists
announcements. We also contacted local retirement
homes. Each potential participant answered a short
screening questionnaire on technological affinity:
Only those with either high or low technological
affinity were included in the studies. Some people
participated in both experiments 1 and 2, but this
number was restricted to 45%. Participants received
a payment of 25 Euros to cover their expenses.
Ethics approval was required neither by our own
institution nor by our funding agency.
How Data Were Collected Wherever possible,
we collected data in a standardized manner to
allow us to analyze them efficiently and conduct
statistical analysis to produce a generalization
of results. To gain a more complete picture, we
collected qualitative data that were not included in
the structured recording protocols.
• We conducted pretests and created observation
protocols from the behavioral patterns observed
for any observations carried out. Additional
behavioral patterns observed during the main
tests were recorded in a free format. Similarly,
we created structured protocols of features of
interest for the competitor analysis. To illustrate
these protocols, we took pictures of the different
TVM and their features of interest.
• We created structured guidelines and protocol
sheets to use in the interviews. We also recorded
the interviews to allow us to transcribe important
sequences and amend the protocols if necessary.
• Focus groups were conducted in the usability
laboratory and video recorded with two
dome cameras and audio recorded with two
microphones. Two members of our research
team led the group in line with a predefined
structure. Another two observed the discussion
in an adjacent room, took down notes, and
documented major results.
• For experiments 1 and 2, participants were
randomized to the different experimental
conditions. Experiments were conducted in the
usability laboratory and lasted between one and
two hours. Participant interaction with the TVM
(mockup) was logged, behavior was observed,
and think-aloud-protocols were recorded
digitally. Two members of the experiment team
were present to instruct the participants and
note down any observations and important
statements.
• Logfile analysis from the train station and from
experiment 2 was conducted by the software
partner in the project.
How Data Were Analyzed We input quantitative
data into Excel and SPSS and analyzed these data
statistically. In essence, we computed frequencies
to gain an overview of the distribution of features,
interaction problems, and successful interactions.
To generalize our findings, we computed statistical
tests of mean comparisons (ANOVA) between
participants in the elderly and young age groups
and those with high and low technological affinity.
We conducted content analyses of qualitative data.
We bundled the answers to specific questions and
searched for common topics as well as common
behavioral patterns or features.
Ensuring Credibility and Trustworthiness To
ensure high reliability, we strived to collect and
analyze data in an objective way. First, where
possible, we structured data collection and used
standardized protocols (see section “How data
was collected”). Second, we recorded data where
possible to allow us to review the ratings of
observation, focus groups, and interview protocols.
In those cases where data recording was not
possible, we used two independent observers (the
direct versus cautious approach to the old TVM was
rated, for example, by two independent observers at
the railway station, yielding an agreement of more
than 90%). Third, we conducted an internal training
session for the experiment team, observers, and for
the coding team to ensure that instructions were
always given in a similar manner, that protocols
were understood in a similar way, and that data
were coded in the same way. Fourth, we selected
and negotiated all methodological decisions in our
group of four to five usability experts to look for
potential pitfalls and problems.
ABOUT THE CASE
In the following section, we will provide a
step-by-step account of how we proceeded in the
INNOMAT project to develop a prototype for a novel,
barrier-free TVM for the ÖBB. In doing so, we will

7. 144 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 2, JUNE 2013
Fig. 4. Final design of the new TVM interface (left) and hardware (right).
present the problem, our solution, and how we
developed it.
Problem Current TVMs do not meet the
requirements of many of their users. In the public
transport context, they tend to be aligned with
business processes and mirror the thinking of IT
specialists rather than the thinking of travelers.
In the past, users were not involved in the
development process for TVM. User studies were
only conducted after the design was completed,
and major redesigns were not possible at such a
late stage.
To involve the users from the very start of the
development process, this case study was not an
industrial development, but was instead proposed
and funded as a research project—with all of the
associated constraints that come with such a
project. In our case, the funding was cut, and we
were therefore not able to conduct a final evaluation
in situ in a railway station setting.
Solution In an iterative process, we developed
a novel barrier-free TVM using a UCD approach.
The TVM was aligned with the requirements and
the thinking of the broad public who use such
machines, especially the elderly and people with
low technological self-efficacy.
The main screen of the resulting TVM only has
a small number of buttons, which are clustered
using different colors for different functions [Fig. 4,
(top left)]. A “search engine-like” destination input
bar is the most salient element on the screen. The
purchase process interface narratively maps a train
journey and by resembling the cognitive script of
travelling is intuitive for many people and many
different user groups [Fig. 4, (bottom left)]. Where
possible, the TVM hardware reacts to user input in
a smart way: It automatically adjusts to the user’s
height, activates relevant areas, and uses lighting
to direct the user to these areas [Fig. 4, (right)].
Novel features have been included if they make
the purchase process easier, but no cutting-edge
technologies have been used that are of no benefit
to the users.

8. SIEBENHANDL et al.: UCD APPROACH TO SELF-SERVICE TVMS 145
Fig. 5. INNOMAT project facts about the solution.
Fig. 5 provides an overview of the key facts and
figures regarding the INNOMAT project.
Process for Developing the Solution The process
for developing the solution involved many phases.
Fig. 1 identified the key phases in this process,
which we followed when developing this project. The
following sections describe our process in detail.
CONTEXT OF USE (COU)
All good design processes begin by examining the
context of use, and the INNOMAT project was no
different. In our case, this examination had to
focus on the current situation at railway stations in
Austria, the way people used the existing systems
available at these stations, and their attitude
towards these machines. We also aimed to identify
other good and bad examples of TVM in Europe
and to determine whether any other work had been
carried out elsewhere to design a user interface that
better accommodates the broad needs of the target
groups (in particular, nontechnical railway users,
persons with reduced mobility). In order to shed
light on these issues, we used a variety of methods
to ensure we obtained a holistic evaluation of the
status quo.
Literature Review: In a first step, we collected
the special needs and requirements of different
target groups already identified in prior research.
The findings of this literature review established
links between the context of use (the railway
station) and the users of the public transport
network. From existing research dealing with
the particular needs of the disabled, we were
able to identify and incorporate a number of
specific design requirements that have to be taken
into consideration to allow people with vision
impairments or wheelchair users to actually use
(a new generation of barrier-free) TVM in the first
place. In addition, our literature review included
preparatory work to accommodate the special
needs of the elderly, which frequently result from
the changes to their cognitive abilities experienced
by people in this age group. A detailed description
of the findings of this phase can be found in [8].
Observations and Interviews: In order to specify
and understand the target users, we conducted a
field study in which we observed 50 people at two
railway stations and interviewed an additional 50
people: 25 as they used TVM and the other 25 in
front of the ticket counter. Our aim here was to
identify user groups who had problems using the
machines and determine where these problems lay.
To assess their experiences, we asked these people
about their levels of satisfaction with and reasons
for choosing or avoiding a TVM.
Our observations and interviews showed no
occurrence of “typical accessibility or usability
problems” like font size, contrast, or button size,
even among elderly users. In contrast, most people
were able to use the TVM without encountering
such problems. However, to ensure an all-round
positive UX, we felt it was important to focus on the
problems encountered by those people who did not
succeed in using the machines.
The observations and interviews revealed a number
of serious barriers to the use of TVM, above all
among older and middle-aged passengers. They
often approached the TVM with great caution and
sometimes had to cancel their purchase process.
Some customers in these age groups, in particular,
had little confidence in their ability to successfully
buy a ticket at a self-service terminal. When asked
why they avoided the machines, they referred
to bad experiences, doubt in their own abilities,
and mistrust in the technology. (For more details,

9. 146 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 2, JUNE 2013
see [9].) They lack positive experiences of using
everyday technologies.
Social Cognitive Theory offers an explanation for
the underlying emotional and motivational factor
responsible for avoiding everyday technologies:
Self-efficacy (SE) is the belief “in one’s capabilities
to organize and execute the courses of action
required to produce given attainments” [10, p. 3].
In Czaja et al. [11], computer SE was an important
predictor for the use of technical devices, and was
mediated by computer anxiety. Czaja et al. (ibid.)
noted that people with a low level of SE had a lower
probability of using a technology. Since senior
citizens are frequently represented in this group,
the authors stressed the importance of using
technology that allows senior citizens to experience
success and build up their confidence in their own
abilities. Consequently, low levels of technological
literacy and the underlying emotional factor of
avoiding the terminals—low levels of computer
SE—were subsequently taken into consideration in
the creation of the new interface.
Video Analysis: Analyzing anonymous video
recordings of ticket purchase scenarios at a
large railway station in Vienna provided us with
further important insights into the location of
TVM, the distance between machines, the layout
of hardware elements (such as payment elements
and dispensing drawers), as well as the behavior
of customers during the purchase process. In the
analysis of these videos, particular focus was given
to the general behavior exhibited by customers
when standing in line or selecting a machine: In
general, they tried to maintain a social distance to
other customers by selecting the machine that was
farthest away from other customers. When a group
of customers used one TVM, the adjacent machine
was also blocked due to the narrow layout of the
machines. Another problem observed was that
people had to bend down to retrieve their tickets
from the dispenser. This was a particular problem
for elderly and mobility-impaired customers.
Log File Analysis: Purchase process logs for
ÖBB TVM at the Vienna South railway station
(Südbahnhof) were used to analyze the current
system and current configuration of the purchase
process. Logs of 144 purchase processes (on
October 14, 2008 from 06:24 to 10:56 am) were
analyzed. Of these, 61 were cancelled prior to
completion of the actual purchase, with 54% of
processes cancelled on the initial start screen and
20% on the selection screen. The start screen
displays around 25 buttons, which seems to
overwhelm customers in their search for the right
product. The selection screen also required that
ticket specifications be input in a predefined order
that was not transparent to the customers. These
observations led us to the conclusion that a great
deal of emphasis had to be placed on the redesign
of the start and selection screens.
Competitor Analysis: Important information on
current state-of-the-art TVM was also obtained from
our broad competitor analysis. The analysis data
were gathered between December 2008 and April
2009 at railway stations in Austria (such as Vienna,
Linz, and Bregenz) and nine other European cities
(Munich, Frankfurt, Zurich, Brussels, Amsterdam,
Strasbourg, Lille, Mikkeli, and Barcelona), and
the US (New York and Boston). These locations
were selected based on preliminary research and
recommendations. The site analysis focused on
the location/position of TVM in stations (ease
of identification, accessibility factors), hardware
design (such as height adjustability and options for
use by the visually impaired), and user interface
design (such as purchase process and accessibility
factors). The data were supplemented by material
provided on request by the respective transport
operators or published on the internet.
One particularly interesting TVM was identified in
the Netherlands. It displays the entire purchase
process on one screen, thereby providing the
customer with a good overview. It also provides
direct visual feedback on any selections made.
Interestingly, the development of this TVM was
accompanied by user tests and aligned with gestalt
principles [12].
Accessibility Workshop: A special accessibility
workshop was held on March 23, 2009 at
the Danube University Krems in Austria. This
workshop was attended by accessibility experts,
representatives of the various target groups (such
as organizations for the visually impaired or
organizations for people with mobility restrictions),
and representatives of the ÖBB in its capacity both
as project leader and largest current deployer of
self-service TVM in Austria. Its aim was to establish
the specific requirements, needs, and context of use
of the different target groups. In the course of the
workshop, the TVM’s importance as a sales channel
for different target groups was discussed along with
the major hardware and software design problems
and possible solutions. In addition, the different
systems identified in the competitor analysis were
assessed.

10. SIEBENHANDL et al.: UCD APPROACH TO SELF-SERVICE TVMS 147
An important outcome that stemmed from this
workshop was the decision not to focus on
developing a TVM for blind users: This user group
prefers other sales channels where they can use
their personal assistant technologies. Thus, the
costs of developing an interface for the blind would
be too high in relation to the benefits.
Regular Meetings: During regular project meetings,
the results of the analyses to specify the context
of use were discussed within the project team
and implications derived for the requirements
specification. At these meetings, the project team
worked not only on developing its ideas and
visions, but also on issues of technical feasibility,
maintenance, and organizational implications.
REQUIREMENTS ANALYSES (RA)
The results of the first phase (context of use)
were condensated into a list of requirements for
a barrier-free TVM. Specific tasks of this phase
included identifying interface and hardware
requirements.
Interface Requirements: As far as the interface
design was concerned, it quickly became evident
that the biggest challenge would lie in reducing
the complexity (such as establishing a purchase
process that would be understandable to all users
without requiring high computer literacy and
knowledge of fare structures).
Some of the requirements encountered actually
contradicted one another [8]. While users with little
technological literacy argued for a step-by-step
system that guides users through the whole
process, expert users (such as commuters who
arrive shortly before their train is due to depart and
want to buy their tickets quickly) also have to be
taken into consideration. Potential solutions to this
dilemma could include a personalized system (such
as offering cardholders the opportunity to simply
insert their cards and buy frequently purchased
tickets in a single step).
In the workshops and interviews with target
group representatives, the question arose as to
whether the TVM actually must/could meet all
of the requirements or whether some of these
could be better provided and served using other
sales channels. People with mobility restrictions
frequently require assistance to board a train and,
therefore, generally buy their tickets at the ticket
counter, since they have to request this assistance
at the station in any case. However, ticket counters
are the only alternative sales channel available to
nontechnical customers (in our case, primarily
senior citizens). As a result, a readily accessible,
easy-to-use interface is important for this target
group.
Hardware Requirements: The way the terminals
are embedded into the station infrastructure is a
further important point that became particularly
apparent in the best practice analysis. The key
elements that need to be considered here are
the position and accessibility of the TVM in
the station and the ability to purchase a ticket
without impediment, such as by enabling users to
maintain a proper social distance and preventing
glare. Existing accessibility guidelines provided
information on positioning machines to provide
adequate clearance and accessibility for wheelchair
users and emphasized the need to mark or indicate
these features.
While the layout of hardware elements is, of course,
affected by the technical framework and applicable
norms, the layout itself also has a significant
influence on usability. Our video analysis showed
that the dispensing drawer on the current ÖBB
TVM was very low, and that a large number of
people had to bend down to get their tickets. Other
requirements, which have received surprisingly
little attention to date, relate to the context of use,
such as facilities for people with luggage, prams,
and pushchairs. The use of clear symbols to identify
specific hardware elements is a further important
hardware and layout aspect, in particular, when
it comes to tailoring the system to the needs of
visually impaired users.
While current self-service terminals often have a
smaller sibling to allow wheelchair access, this
rather expensive strategy fails to account for the
various heights needed by users and is not a
financially viable solution for general use at all
railway stations in the future. In UCD process
terms, the requirements analyses (RA) corresponds
to the step “Specify the user and organizational
requirements.” In the INNOMAT project, the
specific requirements of the individual target
groups were assessed for technical feasibility and
maintainability. From a software design perspective,
the results of this assessment showed that the
purchase process had to be made as flexible as
possible. From a hardware perspective, the results
of the study also produced recommendations for
system maintenance and addressed other aspects
like burglar-proof construction, cleaning options,
and other maintenance issues.

11. 148 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 2, JUNE 2013
The results of the RA, together with the analyses of
the context of use (TVM in railway stations) (CoU)
and the different user groups, were used to create
a detailed catalog of requirements. In addition to
accessibility and usability factors, this catalog also
contained some UX aspects, relating, in particular,
to the issue of support for the different target
groups.
DESIGN AND EVALUATION
The next steps in the project were UCD steps
four and five (“Produce design and prototypes”
and “Carry out user-based assessment”). The
goal here was to identify and develop new
approaches and designs for the TVM’s hardware
and software. The methods employed—from the
initial creativity workshops and wireframes layouts
in the early stages of the project, through to the
clickable prototypes and subsequent integrated
prototype—were all aimed at systematically
involving the users. Solutions were presented to,
tried out by and discussed with the future target
groups, with the results fed back into the design
process.
Definition of Use Cases: To structure and
subsequently test the purchase process, four
use cases were defined in cooperation with
representatives of the ÖBB. While these cases were
all based on current ÖBB ticket sales statistics,
care was also taken to include a more complex
purchase scenario that would not have been
possible with the current system—tickets for a
small group of individuals travelling together.
Emphasis was also placed on ensuring that the
users would receive a choice of different offers to
simulate the somewhat complex fare structure and
the corresponding selection by the user.
The four selected use case scenarios were as
follows:
(1) Standard ticket for a single person.
(2) Discount ticket for a family of two adults and
one child.
(3) Ticket for a single person for a return journey
in the local transport network.
(4) Tickets for a group of three adults—including
one travel card holder—for a return journey in
the local transport network.
Design 1 [D1]: By the end of Design Phase 1,
several mockups had been developed based on
ideas developed at workshops attended by members
of the target groups and media/usability experts.
Brainstorming and Creativity Workshop: In a
workshop attended by eight media and usability
experts from the Danube University Krems, a range
of creative ideas for a new TVM was developed and
collected. These included new ways of selecting a
destination, such as by entering the target station
in a search bar on the start screen (similar to the
Google Toolbar) or selecting it on a map. The TVM
would then display a selectable list of possible
train connections. Another suggestion was an
“intelligent” TVM which recognizes a customer,
instantly provides a list of his/her most recent
journeys, knows his/her current position, and
offers the best deals to the customer’s most
frequent destinations from the current location.
Wireframes Layout: Based on the ideas collected
and the catalog of requirements, five alternatives for
a new start screen were developed in cooperation
with a group of media designers. Fig. 6 shows
a wireframe of the start screen used in the
current ticket systems (left, frequently criticized as
overloaded) alongside one of the new “less cluttered”
alternatives (right, which also incorporates some of
the features discussed at the creativity workshop).
Pilot [P]: In a next step, we organized an
eight-person focus group with members of the
specific target groups (four senior citizens and four
younger people, two members of each group with
little technological literacy, see Fig. 3). We also
organized a second focus group with eight usability
experts. The primary aim of the focus groups was
to gather feedback on the wireframes layout of
the start screens and obtain ideas and feedback
regarding the structure of the purchase process.
Special focus was placed in the discussions on
how the system could enhance UX. What do people
think about when they approach a TVM? How
could the start screen convey the message that
the system is easy to use? The key responses
here were that the start screen should be clearly
structured and that it should not be overloaded or
confusing. The first focus group also voiced certain
misgivings about the map-based selection of the
destination (“You have to select the destination on
the map? I’m not very good at geography.”). The
search bar was received in a particularly positive
manner and described in general—even by those
people who virtually never used a computer—as a
recognizable and easy-to-use function. We therefore
implemented the search bar in the subsequent
prototypes.
Design 2 [D2]: In Design Phase 2, prototypes were
created by the design partner and the software

12. SIEBENHANDL et al.: UCD APPROACH TO SELF-SERVICE TVMS 149
Fig. 6. Wireframes of the start screens of the current TVM (left) and one of the new designs (right).
Fig. 7. Prototype A—overview (left) and passenger selection submenu (right) screens.
partner in the project team. Following the focus
groups, where the wireframes had been discussed
at length, design workshops were subsequently
arranged within the project team (media designers,
human–computer interaction (HCI) experts, ÖBB).
These workshops were very productive, with an
exchange of ideas that led to the creation of three
different prototypes. The following could be selected
on each of these four prototypes: destination,
different types of passengers (adults, children,
families, dogs ), date of travel, and ticket class.
Prototype A—“Virtual Ticket”: The first interface
was a contemporary adaption of the TVM system
already in place at ÖBB stations. It featured a
ticket-like overview and typical human–computer
interaction elements like submenus and drop-down
menus. (See Fig. 7.)
Prototype B—“Netherlands Clone”: This system was
a modification of the easy-to-use system currently
used in the Netherlands. All possible options can
be seen immediately and the current selection is
highlighted. To account for the higher complexity
of the Austrian fare system in comparison to its
counterpart in the Netherlands, we developed a
novel person configuration approach in which
passengers could be selected graphically. (See
Fig. 8.)
Prototype C—“Train Metaphor”: Although largely
similar to prototype B, this option extended the
graphical metaphor by using a train narrative and
animations. The selected passengers “move” into a
train, and any options selected are visualized by
train wagons moving into the correct position. (See
Fig. 9.) More detailed information on this prototype
can be found (and seen) in [13].
Software Mockup Testing: In a 2 2 laboratory
experiment, 48 participants with differing levels
of computer SE (24 low, 24 high) and of different

13. 150 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 2, JUNE 2013
Fig. 8. Prototype B—Passenger selection (left) and options (right) screens.
ages (24 over and 24 under the age of 55)
interacted with the three prototypes (within-design,
balanced order). The interfaces were presented
to the participants on a touchscreen. For each
prototype, the participants were given four fictitious
travel stories and tasks based on the use cases
described before. The time needed to complete
the tasks was recorded in the logfiles along with
the user interactions and errors. In addition, the
participants were encouraged to verbalize their
thoughts and feelings via think-aloud techniques
to track their subjective experiences during the
purchase process. At the end of the experiment,
the participants were required to complete a short
usability questionnaire on their system preferences
as well as a short semantic differential based
on the AttrakDiff questionnaire to measure the
hedonic qualities of the three prototypes [14].
After the experiment, we conducted interviews
with the participants to acquire insights into
their explicit knowledge of the buying processes.
During these interviews, the participants also
had the opportunity to give reasons for their
stated preferences and to freely formulate their
experiences with the prototypes.
Repeated measures analysis of variance indicated
significant effects both for between-subjects
factors and for within-subjects factors.
Firstly, the amount of time and number
of user interactions per trial were higher
for participants with low computer literacy
2,44 11.85 0.001 η 0.35 and older
participants 2,44 7.96 0.01 η 0.27
with no significant interaction. Second, the
participants needed less time and fewer screen
interactions to complete the tasks with prototype
C (train metaphor) than with the other prototypes
4,42 3.79 0.05 η 0.27 .
Errors or difficulties in use were encountered almost
exclusively in the selection of passengers—the
participants chose the wrong kind or wrong number
of passengers or selected a wrong travel card (such
as forgetting or not finding the discount option,
choosing the wrong discount option, or mixing up
individual and family travel cards) in a surprisingly
frequent number of cases when using prototypes A
and B. Virtually no such errors were recorded when
the participants used prototype C. (See Table I.)
Usability ratings (as well as user preference)
for prototype C were independent of individual
computer SE levels (see Fig. 10), unlike prototypes
A and B, which were assessed less positively
by participants with lower computer SE scores
( 1 9.42, 0.01 η 0.17 . Prototype C
received better usability ratings than prototypes A
and B 2 18.11 0.001 η 0.28 .
The critical problems with these prototypes were
reflected in the comments made by participants
(and recorded during the experiment). Prototypes
A and B both triggered negative experiences with
passenger selection: “I can’t press the ‘Complete’
button until I’ve chosen all the passengers.”, “Oh no,
here we go again! If I select two adults, I can’t add
the child.” Other statements related to navigation
problems (“There’s so much information on the
screen, but not what I need to know.”) or difficulties
grasping the general software concept (“Typical
developer logic ”).
Older participants were particularly prone to
stopping during the difficult cases and asking
(or looking at) the test coordinator for support.

14. SIEBENHANDL et al.: UCD APPROACH TO SELF-SERVICE TVMS 151
Fig. 9. Prototype C—Passenger selection (left) and options (right) screens.
TABLE I
ERRORS RECORDED IN USE CASE 2 (FAMILY)
Prototypes A and B also elicited verbal reactions
among participants in this age group that indicated
an aversion to using this kind of TVM in the future:
“I’d rather go by car!”, “I’d rather stand in line at the
counter behind ten other people.”, “Very confusing.
If this were real life, I would walk away from the
machine now.”
A few of the younger, computer literate participants
indicated a preference for prototype B, even though
they had encountered difficulties with it in the
initial trials: “It’s actually very easy.” The same
target group described prototype A as “possibly too
computer-like” or “complicated”. Nevertheless, they
did appreciate the simple approach to purchasing
a ticket for a single journey offered by this system:
“It’s simple for one person.” Comments on the
moving train and graphical selection of passengers
were almost exclusively positive: “It’s fun”, “Neat, I
like the train going around”, “Cool!”, “The figures are
very concise”. Only one participant did not like the
basic idea behind this system: “That’s nonsense—I
want to buy a ticket, not play with a toy.”
Software Refinements: The results of the software
test indicated that prototype C (“Train Metaphor”)
was perceived to be easy to use by people with
a generally low level of computer SE, and that
this target group could be encouraged to consider
using the TVM option when confronted with such
a system. By applying an everyday graphical
metaphor (selecting passengers by moving them
into a train), the user was guided through the
purchase process without a need for specific
computer domain knowledge. These findings
led to the consortium’s decision to develop this
interface further and drop the other two prototypes.
Nonetheless, some aspects still needed further
refinement or were incomplete, such as the
automatic display of a choice of low-cost options for
the selected parameters or a personalization system
that allowed users to select their most frequent
routes. The look and feel of the prototype were also
revised to better reflect the ÖBB’s corporate identity
and branding. (See Fig. 11.)
Integrated Software and Hardware Prototype: A
hardware development workshop for representatives
of the specific target groups, hardware developers,
industrial designers, and representatives of the
ÖBB was subsequently held at the Danube
University Krems. The aim of this workshop was
not only to find innovative ways of guaranteeing
accessibility and facilitating use of the new TVM,
but also to discuss the feasibility of the newly
identified possibilities. An industrial designer
hired by the ÖBB subsequently designed the TVM
prototype in line with the requirements catalog and
ideas generated at this workshop. The machine
was then built by the hardware manufacturers in
the consortium and featured two special hardware
elements designed to increase accessibility and
efficiency (see Fig. 12): a QR code reader used not
only by the personalization system but also to
allow the user to quickly buy the same (or return

15. 152 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 2, JUNE 2013
Fig. 10. Usability ratings (left) and semantic differential (right) for the three prototypes.
ticket to a) ticket by simply scanning the original;
a very large vertically mounted touchscreen that
automatically adjusts the active part of the display
to the height of the user (inspired by [15]). The
integrated prototype and refined software were used
for the final round of user tests
Results of User Testing: Similar to the mockup
testing described before, a 2 2 laboratory
experiment (within-design, balanced order) was
conducted with 48 participants with differing levels
of computer SE (24 low, 24 high) and of different
ages (24 over and 24 under the age of 55). The
participants were given the same four fictitious
travel stories used in the mockup tests, but this
time, they interacted with the TVM prototype.
They also had to solve one additional task: they
were handed a ticket with a QR code and told
to buy the return ticket for this route. The same
measurements used in the software mockup testing
were also taken in this experiment (time needed
to solve the tasks and user interactions/errors).
In addition to the short usability questionnaire,
participants were also asked to complete an
enhanced version of the semantic differential before
the postexperiment interview. Since computer SE
is dependent on the subjective feeling of having
made progress during training [4], the participants
were asked to rate their confidence of being able
to successfully buy a valid ticket before and after
the trials. The SE questionnaire used was created
specifically for this experiment and was based on
the approach described by Bandura [16]. Finally,
in a very similar approach to the product reaction
card method [17] used to assess brands and
products [18], the participants were given a list of
50 different adjectives and were asked to select the
five words that they felt best described the TVM.
The observations of the test participants’ behavior
revealed some critical issues with the vertically
mounted touchscreen. The most common such
issues were a parallax error (in 25 cases, almost
half the participants in the test), followed by an
inadvertent touching of the screen with the heel of
the hand (in 16 cases). In addition, some testers
unintentionally adjusted the height of the screen,
since many of them did not realize that height
adjustment was a deliberate function (“I got a real
fright when the screen moved.”). As a consequence,
participants had to adjust their posture to the
(usually too low) position of the screen, causing

16. SIEBENHANDL et al.: UCD APPROACH TO SELF-SERVICE TVMS 153
Fig. 11. Refined software—passenger selection (left) and options (right) screens.
additional parallax and typing errors (18 cases).
Virtually none of the testers recognized the reason
for this problem, assuming instead that either they
were at fault or that there were still some basic
problems with this version of the software.
The problems encountered with the
personalization/quick purchase function
resulted primarily from the fact that the testers
were not familiar with or unable to find the QR code
reader. (See Fig. 13.) A few of them associated the
code with the mobile phone function: “I have to
take a photo of that with an iPhone. But I haven’t got
one!” Half the testers looked for the QR code on the
screen first, while many of them either ignored the
slot containing the reader or confused it with the
ticket dispenser and tried to use other hardware
components to read the code: the slot for banknotes
was the most common choice (17 people), but
some participants also tried to hold the ticket to
the camera (7), the screen (5), or the debit/credit
card payment slot (4). Nine people were unable to
position the ticket correctly, usually holding it too
high. Several users reported that they would have
been able to find the QR code reader quicker if the
symbol displayed at the top of the reader had been
a QR symbol instead of a bar-code symbol. Only 17
testers were able to use the QR code without any
assistance.
Despite these difficulties, all of the participants
said in the postexperiment interviews that they
were extremely impressed with the new hardware
components. They praised the QR personalization
function for its potential time-saving capacity and
welcomed the reduced typing requirements. At
the same time, some participants expressed data
security concerns, particularly since the machine
would allow the ÖBB to monitor and store mobility
behavior data. It was also pointed out that features
of this kind would have to be clearly communicated
in the future because—with the exception of “early
adopters”—most users would not find them out for
themselves.
The only problems explicitly mentioned with regard
to the touchscreen were potential hygiene issues
and the general lack of feedback provided on the
screen. In the interviews, the participants were very
positive about the height adjustment option—but
only after the function had been explained to them
in detail: “That must have been developed by real
experts—but you wouldn’t have known unless you
were told.” A further perceived advantage of the
system was the fact that people with poor eyesight
could get very close to the screen without having to
bend over.
One of the major points learned about the hardware
features from the user tests was that they could
easily interfere negatively with normal usage of
the TVM. The weaknesses in the touchscreen
and the software used to control the height
adjustment (which could, at best, be described as
“experimental,” lacked reliable face recognition and
was very susceptible to changing light conditions)
caused severe problems and confusion by not
working properly in every trial. If this system
was actually to be implemented in a real TVM, it
would need to be guaranteed that the hardware
was 100% dependable. The problems encountered
by the participants in using the new hardware
clearly indicate that the usability (and especially
the visibility) of such systems has to be enhanced.
Providing additional feedback and information,
such as through acoustical signals and/or onscreen

17. 154 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 2, JUNE 2013
Fig. 12. TVM currently in use (left) and created by the project consortium (right).
Fig. 13. Correct usage of the QR code scanner.
explanations, might also facilitate interaction with
the more innovative hardware components.
In addition to the observed results, the statistical
analysis revealed that the starting values
for the ticket purchase SE scale (measured
before solving the tasks) were significantly
higher for participants with a high level of
computer SE (CSE) than for those with low
computer SE 1 9.17 0.01 η 0.28 .
Yet, these values also increased significantly
after the participants had used the TVM
1, 49 29.41 0.001 η 0.38 . The
only exception here was the group of elderly
people with low CSE (significant interaction:
Fig. 14. Changes in ticket purchase SE for the test
group.
time of measurement*age*CSE, 1,49 4.70,
0.05 η 0.09). (See Fig. 14.) Overall, the
machine did not (as yet) succeed in conveying
a sense of success among the members of this
particularly relevant target group and raising their
confidence in their own abilities.
The semantic differential also produced different
results within the different groups. In general, the
TVM was assessed most positively by older people

18. SIEBENHANDL et al.: UCD APPROACH TO SELF-SERVICE TVMS 155
Fig. 15. Semantic differential.
with a higher level of CSE and most negatively
by older people with a lower level of CSE. The
latter group’s more negative impression of the
machine is also reflected in its choice of descriptive
terms: cumbersome, complicated, stressful, not
self-explanatory. (See Fig. 15.) These experiences
are reflected by the statements collected in the
think-aloud protocols: “I would get nervous now
if people were waiting behind me.” or “How did I
manage that? How did I get the two adults into the
train?” Touchscreen issues seemed to be partly to
blame for the unsatisfactory experiences. One user
even gave up at the end of the trial after failing to hit
the “Buy Ticket” button as a result of the parallax
error: “It just doesn’t work! Is there something
else I still have to do? I don’t know what to do
next!”. Furthermore, the difficulties encountered in
selecting the different offers—a point criticized by
the majority of the participants—seemed to add to
the impression that the system was complicated:

19. 156 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 2, JUNE 2013
“Cut out the ÖBB jargon! Get rid of their internal
codes!”
Of the list of 50 characteristics provided to the
participants with the request to select the five that
they felt best described the TVM (product reaction
card method), the following were most frequently
selected: structured process (17), well thought
through (15), usable (14), satisfying (13), innovative
(9), advanced (9), useful (8), comprehensible (7),
accessible (7), helpful (6). It is also important
to note that the participants did not opt for the
more emotional descriptors, but instead chose to
emphasize the more practical and efficient aspects
of the TVM. As one person put it: “I can get my
ticket—and that’s what I want.”
CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
What can be learned from the INNOMAT case study
for the development of other self-service systems?
In this final section, we will begin by deriving
conclusions from our case study and discussing its
limitations before going on to delineate suggestions
for further research.
Conclusions The INNOMAT project lasted more
than three years. The concepts and the design of
the machine were developed by an interdisciplinary
team of ergonomics, barrier-freedom, design,
hardware, and software engineers and specialists.
In potential realization terms, the participation of
future operator of the machine (in this case, the
ÖBB) within the project team and their feedback
were of particular importance. From a development
perspective, the interdisciplinarity of the team
presented a great opportunity, and confronting
designers, hardware developers, and software
specialists with the diverse needs and experiences
of different user groups helped us to realize novel
technical and conceptual solutions and overcome
limiting factors.
An important challenge for the design of public
information and self-service systems like a TVM is
the heterogeneity of possible users [19] and the
manifold user demands. This is why the INNOMAT
project chose to follow the UCD approach. In our
opinion, the UCD methods, which helped us to get
to know the context of use, merit specific mention
here: The participant observations, interviews,
and video analyses allowed us to identify various
needs, barriers, fears, and requests that needed
to be taken into account. The design process was
supported by explicating the user needs and by
focusing on frequently neglected user groups.
We found that in a system designed for different
user groups, some of the many requirements
were clearly contradictory (for example, although
users with little technological literacy argued for a
step-by-step system that guides users through the
whole process, expert users also had to be taken
into consideration). It is necessary—and worth
the effort—to search for reasonable compromises.
In our case, we excluded some groups from our
target groups (for example, blind users were
excluded early in the project) and developed novel
approaches to meet contradicting requirements (for
example, a QR scanner as a fast-access mode for
experienced users).
We know from recent studies that self-service
technologies have a particularly high impact on
people with low affinity to technology; they pose
a barrier to their participation in daily life and
further enlarge the digital divide in society. Our
case study was able to show that low computer SE,
especially in older people, influences interaction
with a novel TVM. However, we were also able to
show that by aligning the design of such a machine
with the narrative scripts of users, fewer interaction
problems and errors occurred than when the
design was based on machine logic. Our semantic
differential and qualitative interview data likewise
indicate that the UX was higher for a narrative
interaction design.
We can therefore conclude that a narrative design
approach is of particular value for self-service
systems [13]. However, adopting this new approach
instead of developing another variant of existing
interaction schemes did require a great deal of
negotiation within the project team. It also required
a great deal of collaboration on the parts of the
human–computer interaction and design partners.
Despite being involved in the process from the very
start, the actual design ideas contributed by the
(potential) users were of limited use in resolving
the heterogeneous requirements for an inclusive
self-service terminal. Nevertheless, they did provide
us with a lot of information on their thoughts and
needs, which broadened our knowledge about UX
and ultimately influenced the design itself.
In our UCD approach, the development was broken
down into, planned, and launched in four phases,
each with its own individual substeps: context of
use, requirements analysis, design, and evaluation.
While all of the process steps were ultimately
completed as planned, some adaptations did prove
necessary along the way, especially with regard to

20. SIEBENHANDL et al.: UCD APPROACH TO SELF-SERVICE TVMS 157
the user tests. The project team wanted to cover
a broad cross section of the actual target group,
which meant that in the course of the project,
more than 250 people were involved in the focus
groups, interviews, and experiments. In line with
the theoretical plan, the first set of tests formed
the basis for the decision on the subsequent
design, while the second experiment produced
recommendations for the implementation of the
TVM. The tests were well planned, coherent, and
conclusive, but, in practice, also very time and
resource intensive. The experiments produced very
detailed data, which subsequently meant that a
great deal of time and effort was required to analyze
it, determine the key points for the next iteration,
communicate this information to the designers and
the hardware/software developers, and negotiate
the necessary design decisions. For some projects,
it might be worth considering a more flexible
approach with smaller iterations—which are less
time consuming and involve fewer resources—as
they can make it easier to steer the project and
handle detailed design questions. It also proved
to be difficult to plan the UCD process prior to
the start of the project, as is suggested in [5].
For example, the target groups for the prototype
had to be adapted during the CoU phase: more
designs were realized than had been planned
in advance and programming took longer than
had been scheduled (to mention just a few of the
alterations that proved necessary). While a rough
work schedule is a definite necessity, adjustments
and detailed planning should follow at a later stage
and might require additional resources.
Although this case study was a research project,
the development of the INNOMAT prototype was still
restricted by some design limitations, a situation
which might also arise in the development of other
self-service systems.
(1) Technical realization proved to be a limiting
factor for the design. For example, the
placement of hardware elements inside the
machine limited the arrangement of external
elements.
(2) To lay the foundations for the future
production of the new generation of TVM
in Austria, the interface had to mirror the
existing fare structure. From earlier research,
we knew that the complexity of the railway fare
structure (more than 1000 different types of
tickets) is one of the major problems in the use
of the current TVM [8]. This issue has been
repeatedly raised in surveys, focus groups,
and other types of evaluations and, therefore,
also had a strong influence on this project
as well, although it was essentially a matter
of corporate strategy for the ÖBB and not
directly linked to the development of the TVM.
Nonetheless, the main goal of this project
was to reduce complexity in the purchase
process without limiting the customer’s ticket
options. Essentially, this meant that the
project team had to think of ways of using
the TVM to at least reduce any need on the
part of the customer to take the fare structure
into consideration. The idea was to design a
“smart” system that could limit the possible
fare options to those offers which were actually
available and which represented the best value
options for the selected parameters and the
current train station. Users would then be able
to make their decisions based on prices and
product descriptions. Although a remarkable
effort was made during the design process to
reduce the number of options, the project team
could basically only acknowledge customer
dissatisfaction with the fare situation, since it
had neither the mandate nor the authority to
influence the existing fare structure. However,
the project team did at least document the
potential hurdles and dissatisfaction and
communicate the problems to management at
the ÖBB during project meetings.
(3) Also related to the complex fare structure,
the names used for the individual tickets
and a (lack of) knowledge of the terms and
restrictions of use, areas of validity, and
similar issues remained potential hurdles—as
was seen in the final laboratory experiment.
(4) One other important factor that has to
be considered is the fact that TVMs are
usually embedded in other sales channels.
Interoperability can therefore only be
guaranteed if there is broad support from the
actual company and adequate coordination
and communication with other projects or
neighboring systems (such as the website
and the TVM sales channels). This raises the
question of how to deal with incongruent
systems (such as the interfaces used on the
internet and the TVM) and with projects that
are insufficiently linked.
From a UX perspective, we would like to emphasize,
in particular, that it is not simply sufficient for
a self-service system to be “usable.” A positive
emotional experience is required to encourage
widespread use by a broad public. Prior studies

21. 158 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 56, NO. 2, JUNE 2013
show that negative feelings toward the system and
low technological SE hinder access to self-service
TVM [2]–[4], [8]. We therefore controlled in this
case study for user technological SE and strived to
develop a system which raised positive emotional
reactions. To assess these, we observed how users
interacted with the TVM and documented their
emotional behavior. We also asked the participants
to fill out a semantic differential which showed the
emotional valence of the different interfaces. These
“soft factors” of use may correlate with usability to
some extent, but they add the certain something to
a self-service system that will make it a success.
Limitations This paper presents the INNOMAT
project from the view of the HCI experts. If the
same story were to be told from the perspectives of
the other project partners, the emphasis, details,
and results would undoubtedly be different. By
having collaborated on the design instead of merely
evaluating it from an external perspective, we might
also be biased by an insider’s view of the design
decisions in which we were involved. To reduce any
such influence, we placed special emphasis on the
objectivity of the test methods.
As already mentioned, the original plans had
included more test and development iterations than
were finally conducted. The actual duration of the
development phases was highly underestimated
prior to the project. In order to complete the
project within the allotted timeframe and financial
resources, two iterations had to be cut. Regrettably,
the TVM could not ultimately be evaluated in
a real-life setting as originally planned: The
development efforts this would have entailed
would have far exceeded the available scope and
resources. Likewise, the integration of real cash
verification elements and a debit/credit card
payment function would have created legal and
financial hurdles. Consequently, only previously
defined use cases were realized and no links could
be developed for actual, valid tickets. Accordingly, a
field test will be conducted when a fully functioning
TVM has been built.
Suggestions for Future Research The UCD
approach proved to be valuable for the development
of self-service systems like TVM, and we would
like to encourage further research on self-service
systems using this approach.
Some interesting questions remained open after
our case study. One such question is how frequent
use of the new TVM would influence technological
SE and UX? We assume that by using the TVM
more often and becoming more familiar with the
interaction, users will produce fewer errors and can
build up a positive feeling toward the machine, a
factor which again might increase technological SE.
A second open question would be whether (and
to what extent) the problems with the hardware
(parallax error, height adjustment, QR scanner)
influenced technological SE and UX. The impact
of such problems would seem to be important in
decisions as to whether self-service technologies
can be installed despite the existence of “minor
bugs” or whether such features should be excluded
if no guarantee can be given that they will function
100% correctly. Our qualitative data suggest the
latter.
REFERENCES
[1] ÉGALITÉ. (2006). Equality issues in everyday life in a telematics supported field of transport. [Online]. Available:
https://forschung.boku.ac.at/fis/suchen.projekt_uebersicht?sprache_in=en&menue_id_in=300&id_in=5863
[2] Passenger Focus. (2008 Oct.). Buying a ticket at the station. Research on ticket machine use. [Online].
Available: http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/research/publications/buying-a-ticket-at-the-station
[3] Ö. Subasi, M. Leitner, N. Hoeller, A. Geven, and M. Tscheligi, “Designing accessible experiences for older
users: User requirement analysis for a railway ticketing portal,” Univ. Access Inf. Soc., vol. 10, pp. 391–402,
2001.
[4] D. Struve and H. Wandke, “Video modeling for training older adults to use new technologies,” ACM Trans.
Access. Comput., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2009.
[5] M. Maguire, “Methods to support human-centred design,” Int. J. Human-Comput. Studies, vol. 55, no.
4, pp. 587–634, 2001.
[6] B. Buxton, Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. San Mateo, CA:
Morgan Kaufmann, 2007.
[7] M. Hassenzahl and N. Tractinsky, “User experience—A research agenda,” Behav. Inf. Technol., vol. 25, no. 2,
pp. 91–97, 2006.
[8] G. Schreder, K. Siebenhandl, E. Mayr, and M. Smuc, E. Loos, L. Haddon, and E. Mante-Meijer, Eds., “The
ticket machine challenge: Social inclusion by barrier-free ticket vending machines,” in Generational Use of New
Media. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2012, pp. 129–148.
[9] G. Schreder, K. Siebenhandl, and E. Mayr, A. Holzinger and K. Miesenberger, Eds., “E-inclusion in public
transport: The role of self-efficacy,” in HCI Usability e-Inclusion. New York: Springer, 2009, pp. 301–311.
[10] A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman, 1997.

22. SIEBENHANDL et al.: UCD APPROACH TO SELF-SERVICE TVMS 159
[11] S. J. Czaja, N. Charness, A. D. Fisk, C. Hertzog, S. N. Nair, W. A. Rogers, and J. Sharit, “Factors predicting
the use of technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology
Enhancement (CREATE),” Psychol. Aging, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 333–352, 2006.
[12] L. Verhoef, Why Designers Can’t Understand Their Users. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Human Efficiency, 2007.
[13] G. Schreder, E. Mayr, K. Siebenhandl, M. Smuc, and M. Nagl, “Narrative interaction as means for intuitive
public information systems,” Int. J. Public Inf. Syst., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 143–149, 2011.
[14] M. Hassenzahl, M. Burmester, and F. Koller, “AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener
hedonischer und pragmatischer qualität,” in Mensch & Computer 2003: Interaktion in Bewegung, G. Szwillus
and J. Ziegler, Eds. Stuttgart, Germany: B. G. Teubner, 2003, pp. 187–196.
[15] S. Hagen and F. Sandnes, “Toward accessible self-service kiosks through intelligent user interfaces,” Personal
Ubiquitous Comput., vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 715–721, 2010.
[16] A. Bandura, F. Pajares and T. Urdan, Eds., “Guide for creating self-efficacy scales,” in Self-Efficacy Beliefs of
Adolescents. Greenwich, UK: Information Age Publishing, 2006, pp. 307–338.
[17] J. Benedek and T. Miner, “Measuring desirability: New methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab
setting,” in Proc. Usability Prof. Assoc., 2002, pp. 8–12.
[18] T. Tullis and B. Albert, Measuring the User Experience. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2008.
[19] B. Sundgren, “What is a public information system?,” Int.J. Public Inf. Syst., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 81–99, 2005.
Karin Siebenhandl graduated in landscape engineering and
received the Ph.D. degree in Landscape Engineering at the
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna,
Austria, in 1997 and 2004, respectively. She is Head of the
Center for Cognition, Information and Management, Danube
University Krems, Krems, Austria. Her research interests include
participatory information design, usability, and gender studies.
Günther Schreder graduated in psychology at Vienna
University, Vienna, Austria, in 2006. Since 2011, he has been
a Research Associate at the Center for Cognition, Information
and Management, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.
His research interests and teaching activities include HCI,
participatory information design and narrative design.
Michael Smuc graduated in psychology in 2003 at Vienna
University, Vienna, Austria. He is Head of Research at the Center
for Cognition, Information and Management, Danube University
Krems, Krems, Austria. His research interests focus on usability
methods, evaluation of Infoviz-tools, graph comprehension, and
dynamic network analysis.
Eva Mayr graduated in psychology in 2004 at Vienna University,
Vienna, Austria, and received the Ph.D. degree in applied
cognitive and media psychology at the University of Tuebingen,
Tuebingen, Germany, in 2009. She is a Research Assistant at
the Center for Cognition, Information and Management, Danube
University Krems, Krems, Austria. Her research interests focus
on how new media technologies support cognitive processing
and informal learning.
Manuel Nagl graduated in communication science at the
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, in 2004 and in
neuroscience from the Vienna University and the Medical
University of Vienna in 2010. He is a research associate at the
Center for Cognition, Information and Management, Danube
University Krems, Krems, Austria. His research interests include
usability, information design, corporate communications, and
narrative design.